Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 157 views

    Virender Singh (CPC)

    Uploaded by

    Soumyadip Sarkar
    The Delhi High Court expressed that while lawsuits are generally maintainable, the court's ability to intervene is limited. In this case, the respondent filed to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit, arguing it was unenforceable under state law. The trial court denied dismissal. On appeal, the court found it could address the lawsuit's maintainability and ruled it could not be maintained as the show-cause notice did not constitute an actionable cause of action. The High Court affirmed the appellate court was within its authority to make this determination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Virender Singh (CPC)

    Uploaded by

    Soumyadip Sarkar
    157 views6 pages
    The Delhi High Court expressed that while lawsuits are generally maintainable, the court's ability to intervene is limited. In this case, the respondent filed to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit, arguing it was unenforceable under state law. The trial court denied dismissal. On appeal, the court found it could address the lawsuit's maintainability and ruled it could not be maintained as the show-cause notice did not constitute an actionable cause of action. The High Court affirmed the appellate court was within its authority to make this determination.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Delhi High Court expressed that while lawsuits are generally maintainable, the court's ability to intervene is limited. In this case, the respondent filed to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit, arguing it was unenforceable under state law. The trial court denied dismissal. On appeal, the court found it could address the lawsuit's maintainability and ruled it could not be maintained as the show-cause notice did not constitute an actionable cause of action. The High Court affirmed the appellate court was within its authority to make this determination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    157 views6 pages

    Virender Singh (CPC)

    Uploaded by

    Soumyadip Sarkar
    The Delhi High Court expressed that while lawsuits are generally maintainable, the court's ability to intervene is limited. In this case, the respondent filed to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit, arguing it was unenforceable under state law. The trial court denied dismissal. On appeal, the court found it could address the lawsuit's maintainability and ruled it could not be maintained as the show-cause notice did not constitute an actionable cause of action. The High Court affirmed the appellate court was within its authority to make this determination.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 6

    Virender Singh v.

    the Delhi State Cooperative


    Bank Limited (2021)
    Facts
    • In the well-known case of Virender Singh v. the Delhi State
    Cooperative Bank Limited (2021), the Delhi High Court
    expressed the opinion that, while there is no absolute
    prohibition on the maintainability of a lawsuit, the court's
    ability to intervene in such a lawsuit by ordering a disciplinary
    investigation or issuing a show cause notice is constrained by
    its very nature. According to Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of
    Civil Procedure, 1908, the respondent in the current case filed
    an application to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit on the grounds
    that it would be unenforceable under the Delhi Cooperative
    Societies Act, 2003. The trial court denied this application.
    Issue
    • Is there outright restriction obstacle to the
    maintainability of a lawsuit filed by a worker in
    protest of a show-cause notice that was issued
    prior to an investigation?
    Petitioner’s Arguments
    • The petitioner argued that because the scope
    of the appeal before the appellate court was
    restricted exclusively to an ad-interim
    injunction given by the Civil Judge, or trial
    court, the appellate court should not have
    resolved the issue of the suit's maintainability
    Respondent’s Arguments
    • The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the
    appellate court was entitled to review the question of
    whether the lawsuit could still be maintained under
    Section 107 of the Code when read in conjunction with
    Order XLI Rule 33.
    • It was also argued that the appeal court was correct to
    rule that the show-cause notice and/or charge sheet did
    not constitute an actionable cause of action in and of
    themselves because they did not amount to an adverse
    order that impinged upon the rights of any party.
    Judgement
    • Justice Navin Chawla presided over the Single Judge Bench 
    and remarked that it is the petitioner of the case's responsi
    bility to convince the trial court and the appeal court that t
    he matter falls within the limited scope of interference or n
    ot. 
    • The Court went on to rule that the current lawsuit cannot b
    e maintained before the appellate court because it was acti
    ng within the bounds of its authority to address the ad inte
    rim injunction that the trial court had issued while the peti
    tioner's application under Order 39 
    Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of 1908 was pending before it.

    You might also like